Should Immigrants to the USA learn English?

[Gallup]

The ability to understand what the law is, given it's written in English. Plus, in a number of states, English is the de jure language.

Then there's the basic thing of "if you want to live somewhere, learn the language". You wouldn't expect to move to France without learning French.

Plenty of people can and do live in France without knowing French.

Either a. They live in an ethic enclave where other people speak their language or b. They don't live there permantly.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Why? If I can violently displace somebody from their country and claim it as my own because I have the bigger gun, why can't I do the same with houses?

What country did the Indians have? What borders were drawn and recognized by other nations? The borders you draw are meaningless if no one recognizes you. There was no entity saying this is the Indian's land. We don't call our takeover a war because we were so quick and swift, but technically it was a legitimate invasion. One which we won and then created a new country one which happened to be on the same land Indians once lived on. It's different from a home invasion because a home is private property which is recognized by a government which has the means to enforce the law and protect property rights.

The United States itself recognizes the existence past and present of Native American nations and groups; that's why aboriginal land titles are granted to certain groups, which sort of puts paid to your claim that nobody recognizes them.

It's quite interesting that you seem to be defining right and wrong based on what is legal and what is not.

[Norstal]

Because some illegal immigrants used to be legal immigrants. One can be an illegal immigrant whilst being in the process of immigration itself. Illegal immigrants aren't always border hoppers from Mexico.

Trafficked children for instance, are illegal immigrants. Are you going to kick them out, putting them in danger, just because they're illegals? That's just silly.

Well, in extraordinary circumstances, such as the outlined above, I think we could look at the situation in a case by case manner to determine the appropriate course of action. As a general policy, however, I fail to see why illegal immigrants should be given preferential treatment. Doing so would only provide a much greater incentive for further illegal immigration.

Considering that I know asylum seekers who were attacked by terrorists in Indonesia who were denied asylum, I wouldn't put it past the DHS to deny visas to trafficked children.

Really, there's a reason why there's a lot of illegal immigrants here. I mean, yeah, you can say that we should look it case by case, but that's what I'm saying: they don't. And I'm not saying illegals should be given preferential treatment either. All I'm saying is we should treat illegals the same as legals.

[AiliailiA]

The source in the post above is very incomplete, and drawn from so many different sources it can't all be reliable. Japan being a very notable omission (it's in the second list, but that's only English as a First Language speakers ... folks like NERVUN ... and comes to 0.07% of the Japanese population).

Nonetheless, I'm going to draw a broad conclusion about which languages would be advantageous for an English speaker to learn. The idea is basically that learning Dutch and emigrating there wouldn't give you much competetive advantage: your Dutch wouldn't be as good as a locals and you wouldn't make up for it by having very good English. Some Netherlanders speak excellent English.

And presumably you don't want to move to Ethiopia or Honduras for the wages. Being fluent in English would give you a big advantage (say as a trade rep, or starting your own business trying to export to English-speaking countries, or government press secretary or even as a teacher) and the price of living is low, but you're not going to get rich by world standards.

Right, so I'm using the CIA figures from Wikipedia, for GDP-per-capita (PPP to account for cost of living in the country). Considering only the 50 "richest" countries, excluding any that aren't in the other source for percentage of English speakers, leaving a few high ranked countries in despite not having numbers for English speakers, and putting China and Mexico in too:

Nation	% English speakers	Rank in top 50 GDP(PPP) per cap
Andorra	22.0	24
Spain	22.0	34
Slovakia	26.0	45
Czech	27.0	41
Portugal	27.0	48
Italy	34.0	38
Seychelles	37.9	42
Lithuania	38.0	49
France	39.0	28
Brunei	39.1	7
Estonia	50.0	50
Greece	51.0	47
Luxembourg	56.0	3
Belgium	59.0	21
Slovenia	59.0	40
Switzerland	61.3	10
Germany	64.0	20
Finland	70.0	26
Austria	73.0	13
Cyprus	73.0	46
Singapore	80.0	5
Israel	85.0	29
Canada	85.6	11
Sweden	86.0	17
Denmark	86.0	22
Bahamas,	87.1	31
Norway	89.0	6
Malta	89.0	39
Netherlands	90.0	15
United States	94.2	8
Australia	97.0	12
United Kingdom	97.7	23
New Zealand	97.8	33
Ireland	98.4	16
Barbados	98.6	44
Qatar		1
Liechtenstein		2
Monaco		4
Kuwait		14
Mexico	4.5	70
China	0.8	97

There's not a lot of opportunity there actually. This is a downside of having English as a first language: you can't count on going anywhere with good standard of living, and have your command of English be a rare skill.

Brunei perhaps. But you'll have to be careful with your pronunciation not to be insultan.

For a Statesider, Mexico deserves consideration. It's nearby, it's not terribly poor*, and with dual citizenship you could have the best of both worlds. Many Mexican-born US citizens retain their Mexican citizenship, and it works the other way too.

And of course China. Despite the low ranking due to still having many rural poor, the country trades a lot with English speaking nations (US for exports, Australia for imports), and that figure for English speakers is startlingly low.

*If I was going to do this properly, I'd get more complete figures and I'd also consider GINI. The 'best job you can get' will earn more than median wage.

[AiliailiA]

It's different from a home invasion because a home is private property which is recognized by a government which has the means to enforce the law and protect property rights.

It's quite interesting that you seem to be defining right and wrong based on what is legal and what is not.

American Libertaria: maybe American, but definitely not Libertarian.

Rights are granted by The State. The State gains its legitimacy by the recognition of other States. This is AL's argument in a bombshell.



EDIT: I screwed up the formatting, somehow. Table fatigue perhaps. Also added second paragraph.

[Ifreann]

Plenty of people can and do live in France without knowing French.

Either a. They live in an ethic enclave where other people speak their language or b. They don't live there permantly.

And?

[Vicious Debaters]

Aye, make them'a learn English.

If I moved to Japan, I'd be expected to learn Japanese. If I moved to Spain, I'd be expected to learn Spanish. If a foreigner moves to America, they need to learn English.

That being said, English is a hard language to learn and I try to act very gracious when I interact with immigrants and their broken English.

[Ifreann]

Aye, make them'a learn English.

If I moved to Japan, I'd be expected to learn Japanese. If I moved to Spain, I'd be expected to learn Spanish.

Would you? Does the law in those countries require immigrants to speak Japanese and Spanish, respectively?

[Vicious Debaters]

Aye, make them'a learn English.

If I moved to Japan, I'd be expected to learn Japanese. If I moved to Spain, I'd be expected to learn Spanish.

Would you? Does the law in those countries require immigrants to speak Japanese and Spanish, respectively?

The law doesn't, and the law shouldn't.

But I nevertheless wouldn't expect to get a good job somewhere without knowing the native language.

And I consider helping immigrants learn the native language the responsibility of the government. Free English courses, English advisers, whatever. Something to help them on their path.

I guess I don't resent the few ethnic enclave (mostly Spanish-speakers, I think) who never learn English, but they're really limiting their opportunities.

[Ifreann]

Would you? Does the law in those countries require immigrants to speak Japanese and Spanish, respectively?

The law doesn't, and the law shouldn't.

Aye, make them'a learn English.

Pick one.

[Norstal]

Aye, make them'a learn English.

If I moved to Japan, I'd be expected to learn Japanese. If I moved to Spain, I'd be expected to learn Spanish.

Would you? Does the law in those countries require immigrants to speak Japanese and Spanish, respectively?

Yes. All airports in Japan has a sign to welcome foreigners:

ばかがいじん！すきとかなくて。。。
Stupid foreigners! It's not like I like you or anything......

[AiliailiA]

Aye, make them'a learn English.

If I moved to Japan, I'd be expected to learn Japanese. If I moved to Spain, I'd be expected to learn Spanish. If a foreigner moves to America, they need to learn English.

That being said, English is a hard language to learn and I try to act very gracious when I interact with immigrants and their broken English.

"Make them" and "expect them to" are different things. Note Ifreann's wording.

And of course reply to Iffy before replying to me (it you reply at all). That's only good manners.

[Vicious Debaters]

Pick one.

Ok, I'll clarify.

The government should encourage them to learn the native language, give them the tools to learn the native language, and warn of how difficult it might be to communicate and find employment if they don't make an attempt to learn the native language. However, they should not force them to learn the native language.

[Kyuji]

Would you? Does the law in those countries require immigrants to speak Japanese and Spanish, respectively?

Yes. All airports in Japan has a sign to welcome foreigners:

ばかがいじん！すきとかなくて。。。
Stupid foreigners! It's not like I like you or anything......

Tsundere ......

[The Garahianu Clan]

Why? If I can violently displace somebody from their country and claim it as my own because I have the bigger gun, why can't I do the same with houses?

What country did the Indians have? What borders were drawn and recognized by other nations? The borders you draw are meaningless if no one recognizes you. There was no entity saying this is the Indian's land. We don't call our takeover a war because we were so quick and swift, but technically it was a legitimate invasion. One which we won and then created a new country one which happened to be on the same land Indians once lived on. It's different from a home invasion because a home is private property which is recognized by a government which has the means to enforce the law and protect property rights.

Truly, you are a master of sarcasm.

[Eoghania]

Either a. They live in an ethic enclave where other people speak their language or b. They don't live there permantly.

And?

Ghettos are generally accepted to be problematic, and if one is not permanently resident then they're a tourist so what language they speak is irrelevant.

[Unified Carolina (Ancient)]

Yes and no.

Yes, because English is the most common language in the United States, and it would be a lot easier for an immigrant to speak English to a Walmart employee who can only speak English, verses Spanish, French, et cetera.

However, the US is a culturally mixed nation, where any language may be spoken. The people here have a right to speak whatever language they'd like, and they cannot be discriminated against just for that. So, it is up to the immigrant, in my opinion, whether they'd like to speak English or keep their native tongue.

[Norstal]

And?

Ghettos are generally accepted to be problematic, and if one is not permanently resident then they're a tourist so what language they speak is irrelevant.

Haven't seen any riots in Chinatown in San Francisco. Haven't seen any "problems" in Los Angles' Little Tokyo either.

But quite clearly these are not ethnic enclaves despite them being ethnic enclaves/exception to the rule/something something something.

[Mike the Progressive]

Ghettos are generally accepted to be problematic, and if one is not permanently resident then they're a tourist so what language they speak is irrelevant.

Haven't seen any riots in Chinatown in San Francisco. Haven't seen any "problems" in Los Angles' Little Tokyo either.

And that's the problem.

We need to start rioting if we want to get free stuff like welfare and abortions.

[Gallup]

Either a. They live in an ethic enclave where other people speak their language or b. They don't live there permantly.

And?

Well, they can't really get by permanently on their own and are disadvantaged to live in ethic ghettos.

[Hasuut Inu Tlomaq]

Language snobs? Well, that's not very nice. Everyone in France learns French, we don't have neighborhoods full of Anglo people only speaking English and living in poverty, do we?

Nope , besides the canadians are bigger language snobs then the french ever will be.

Quebecois are very much language snobs. I visited Quebec several years ago and frequently had my English questions answered in French. I was able to switch and respond in French but the locals wouldn't have known that right off. (Was I being an arrogant American by starting in English? Didn't think of that at the time.) Of course with Quebec there's a whole history of their being a settled French area before the Brits came so they're not immigrants as someone coming to the US from, say, China.

As far as immigrants to the US learning English, try getting any kind of decent job or education without it. If not required by lw it will be required by the pocketbook.

[Eoghania]

Ghettos are generally accepted to be problematic, and if one is not permanently resident then they're a tourist so what language they speak is irrelevant.

Haven't seen any riots in Chinatown in San Francisco. Haven't seen any "problems" in Los Angles' Little Tokyo either.

But quite clearly these are not ethnic enclaves despite them being ethnic enclaves/exception to the rule/something something something.

Problematic does not equate to rioting or things like the Irish troubles. Socio-economic isolation is still a problem, not to mention that inability to communicate prevents sharing culture and learning from each other. It's almost like the ability to communicate complex and abstract concepts is one of the single biggest reasons for humanity's dominance as a species. And when you move to live and work in a country that has a de facto official language (and in roughly half its contingent parts, a de jure official language), the onus is on you to learn that language.

[Ifreann]

And?

Ghettos are generally accepted to be problematic,

Who said anything about ghettos?

---

And?

Well, they can't really get by permanently on their own

Sure they can.

and are disadvantaged to live in ethic ghettos.

Why are you switching from "enclave" to "ghetto"?

[Pilotto]

Well, in extraordinary circumstances, such as the outlined above, I think we could look at the situation in a case by case manner to determine the appropriate course of action. As a general policy, however, I fail to see why illegal immigrants should be given preferential treatment. Doing so would only provide a much greater incentive for further illegal immigration.

Considering that I know asylum seekers who were attacked by terrorists in Indonesia who were denied asylum, I wouldn't put it past the DHS to deny visas to trafficked children.

Really, there's a reason why there's a lot of illegal immigrants here. I mean, yeah, you can say that we should look it case by case, but that's what I'm saying: they don't. And I'm not saying illegals should be given preferential treatment either. All I'm saying is we should treat illegals the same as legals.

Giving illegals the same status as legals is preferential treatment: you are accepting people who came here illegally over people who have waited in the legal immigration process. If you adopt the policy of accepting illegal immigrants as if they had come here legally, you are inviting a tide of further illegal immigration.

[Mike the Progressive]

Considering that I know asylum seekers who were attacked by terrorists in Indonesia who were denied asylum, I wouldn't put it past the DHS to deny visas to trafficked children.

Really, there's a reason why there's a lot of illegal immigrants here. I mean, yeah, you can say that we should look it case by case, but that's what I'm saying: they don't. And I'm not saying illegals should be given preferential treatment either. All I'm saying is we should treat illegals the same as legals.

Giving illegals the same status as legals is preferential treatment: you are accepting people who came here illegally over people who have waited in the legal immigration process. If you adopt the policy of accepting illegal immigrants as if they had come here legally, you are inviting a tide of further illegal immigration.

I don't disagree that illegal immigration is a problem. I've had family that has been trying to immigrate here legally and the wait is obscenely long. At the same time, what are you going to do? Realistically? Deport them all?